BART/SEIU unions goes on strike

Some random website said BART offered them 8% over 4 years. Which seems good until you realize they didn't get anything for the past 4 years. So it'd really be 8% over 8 years. Which is well less than the rate of inflation.

I think it is reasonable for them to ask for yearly raises that match inflation. That's in addition to their seniority step raises so it's not like that's unfair.

It is reasonable... just like its reasonable for the Military to get COLA, and other federal workers as well... I am willing to wager many( not all I know) people that leap to defend BART union issues raged about our pay and benefits because its federal.... so excuse me if im not caring much for them.

The initial BART offer was 4% over 4 years and was raised to 8% over 4 years.

The pensions may be the biggest problem, as they are continuously underfunded. BART wants help in handling the pension issue since the workers don't contribute anything to it.

So these workers pay minimal amounts for their healthcare, get automatic raises independent of the raises they are asking for, and get their pensions paid entirely paid for.

Click to expand...

I hate to tell you this, but I would like that extended to our entire labor force, and that includes you Sans. We either make investments in our own labor market or not. So far, not making investments is producing an economy that is bifurcated and stagnant for a lot of workers. As an example, it is beyond fucking stupid that someone could work 48+ hours a week and still need food stamps and other benefits to feed and house their families. This is our banana republic moment, Sans, we can either continue to function as if only half of our labor force exists, or fix the problems and have a much stronger economy going forward.

It is reasonable... just like its reasonable for the Military to get COLA, and other federal workers as well... I am willing to wager many( not all I know) people that leap to defend BART union issues raged about our pay and benefits because its federal.... so excuse me if im not caring much for them.

Click to expand...

I've been raging about what they do to our enlisted men/women for years, but it's like yelling into the abyss.... there's not even an echo.

The labor force is split and stagnant because millions of workers have skills that are no longer needed and have been replaced by technology or foreign labor. How do you expect to get the middle class to expand when the number of skilled jobs needed is miniscule compared to the number of available workers? Do we start simply paying middle-class wages for unskilled labor just to boost the economy? Where does the money come to do that?

The factory jobs that let those workers move up into the middle class are mostly gone and won't be coming back. There are definitely high-paying jobs out there, but not nearly enough to find work for those that are looking. And the influx of millions of low-skilled workers across the borders are only going to make those numbers worse.

How do you plan to convince the average consumer that they have to start paying 10/20/50/100% more so that we can pay everyone a 'liveable wage'?

It is reasonable... just like its reasonable for the Military to get COLA, and other federal workers as well... I am willing to wager many( not all I know) people that leap to defend BART union issues raged about our pay and benefits because its federal.... so excuse me if im not caring much for them.

Click to expand...

Haha grats on playing into the hands of the people who are fucking you in the ass.

I'm a federal worker too. I'm well aware how we've got shit in terms of COLAs. But that doesn't mean they deserve to get fucked in the same way. That's a race to the bottom and the only winners from that race are the people busy fucking you and me too.

The labor force is split and stagnant because millions of workers have skills that are no longer needed and have been replaced by technology or foreign labor. How do you expect to get the middle class to expand when the number of skilled jobs needed is miniscule compared to the number of available workers? Do we start simply paying middle-class wages for unskilled labor just to boost the economy? Where does the money come to do that?

The factory jobs that let those workers move up into the middle class are mostly gone and won't be coming back. There are definitely high-paying jobs out there, but not nearly enough to find work for those that are looking. And the influx of millions of low-skilled workers across the borders are only going to make those numbers worse.

How do you plan to convince the average consumer that they have to start paying 10/20/50/100% more so that we can pay everyone a 'liveable wage'?

Click to expand...

the mental gymnastics you have to do to rationalize that is awe inspiring.

There is a difference between our jobs Yuki... your have a union that CAN fight for you (doesnt mean they dont roll over and take it in the keester I know) but because im military they would like to help me but military rules trump union.. so im double f'd.

BART's budget is looking pretty good right now, which is why they are striking. They accepted no raises for 4 years for the last 4 years because everyone knew the economy was shit and BART's funding got cut.

Now BART's funding is being restored and more people are using the system than ever before so the financial outlook is actually IIRC better now than it ever has been in history.

The 21% over 4 years sounds like a lot but it is really 21% over 8 years because they got zero the last cycle. 21% over 8 years is basically just keeping pace with inflation. As far as initial union demands go it actually seems pretty reasonable to me.

I think they would probably settle for 12%. BART was only offering them 8% - up from 4% - which is borderline insulting when you realize that's under inflation.

There is a difference between our jobs Yuki... your have a union that CAN fight for you (doesnt mean they dont roll over and take it in the keester I know) but because im military they would like to help me but military rules trump union.. so im double f'd.

Click to expand...

Uh no there is really no difference in practice. Maybe some federal union somewhere has some actual power but mine certainly does not. When they announced we were being furloughed for 7 days the union said it wasn't even going to try to protest. And as you well know no federal worker has got a COLA for a long time now.

It does. If you are not under military contract, why should there be a cost of living adjustment?

If its in your contract great, but it doesn't have to be mandatory.

Its a free world and people have free choice to take the job there or not.

No one is going to jail if they choose to opt out, unlike the military.

It is free choice.

There is no logical reason as to why resident taxpayers in a city should pay Cost-of-Living Adjustment more to other civilian residents in the same city, just because the cost of living is expensive in the same city.

Federal workers are on a pay schedule. If the pay tables don't get periodically updated they fall further and further behind each year because of inflation. What we are talking about is pay table increases to match inflation. There is not really any real good argument for why federal workers should be paid less and less every year.

Not sure why this is anyone else's business other than the workers and the state.

Click to expand...

**boggle**

Rosaria said:

If you believe in trickle-down economics, and some of you do, then you would have to greet this move as a boon for the local economy. More money to spend in shops for goods and services and more money for discretionary items is exactly what is needed.

Click to expand...

Taking money from person A to give to person B so that person B can spend it instead of person A... is somehow BETTER than just letting person A spend it in the first place??

Do you even read what you write?

Rosaria said:

I don't care if they can negotiate 500$K/year.

Click to expand...

Ah I see. Now it all makes sense. You think the money they get paid grows on trees.

Public employee salaries need to be looked at, there is no reason for them to be making so much more than the same job in private industry. You know when janitors are making $70k a year there is a problem.

BART primarily serves the SF metro area, not SF itself. Muni serves SF. People in SF are not too impacted. It's people coming from the east bay primarily who are impacted. People on the peninsula are impacted too but at least there's the option of caltrain too.

Actually it was more in response to Eodoll's post which appeared to be the first 2 sentences of a Jr. High essay on BART, but in more general terms it's just an acknowledgement that the stupid in the thread had achieved singularity status.

The 21% over 4 years sounds like a lot but it is really 21% over 8 years because they got zero the last cycle. 21% over 8 years is basically just keeping pace with inflation.

Click to expand...

Their step increases were zero? Or did you mean they actually got raises, just not the right kind of raises?

Click to expand...

I think you are missing the point.

Step increases max out eventually, so a lot of those people are actually earning less in real terms than they were 5 years ago.

But even or those who arn't, they're earning less in real terms than they would have 5 years ago with the same amount of service. That makes very little sense economically no matter how you cut it. The economy has grown significantly since 5 years ago and BART's financial position is vastly better than it was 5 years ago. It is hard to rationalize why equivalent BART workers should be making less in 2013 than they did in 2008.

BART primarily serves the SF metro area, not SF itself. Muni serves SF. People in SF are not too impacted. It's people coming from the east bay primarily who are impacted. People on the peninsula are impacted too but at least there's the option of caltrain too.

Click to expand...

Not really, there are far more bart lines serving SF. The ones that go into the east bay also serve SF. How? They help locals from sf go to the east bay for work and they bring workers in from the east bay to SF.

BART primarily serves the SF metro area, not SF itself. Muni serves SF. People in SF are not too impacted. It's people coming from the east bay primarily who are impacted. People on the peninsula are impacted too but at least there's the option of caltrain too.

Click to expand...

Not really, there are far more bart lines serving SF. The ones that go into the east bay also serve SF. How? They help locals from sf go to the east bay for work and they bring workers in from the east bay to SF.

Click to expand...

Uh yes, the people primarily impacted are people coming from the east bay. As I said before. I dunno WTF you are arguing about here. The point is just that if you live in SF and work in SF BART going on strike doesn't really impact you much.

BART primarily serves the SF metro area, not SF itself. Muni serves SF. People in SF are not too impacted. It's people coming from the east bay primarily who are impacted. People on the peninsula are impacted too but at least there's the option of caltrain too.

Click to expand...

Not really, there are far more bart lines serving SF. The ones that go into the east bay also serve SF. How? They help locals from sf go to the east bay for work and they bring workers in from the east bay to SF.

Click to expand...

Uh yes, the people primarily impacted are people coming from the east bay. As I said before. I dunno WTF you are arguing about here. The point is just that if you live in SF and work in SF BART going on strike doesn't really impact you much.

Click to expand...

I was pointing out to gronk that his idea of all the workers (or businesses) should leave SF and only kids still living with their parents should take these jobs does not apply.

P.S. I don't know about you guys but I'm happy to pay 30 more cents a day to hire a driver who didn't come right off the burger flipping line at McDonalds. Maybe Gronk would prefer that, but I wouldn't.